===================== HES POSTING ===================== 
 
This is my first `RE:` in HES discussions so I have to introduce myself. 
 
My name is Maxim Storchevoy and I am Assistant Professor in  
Saint-Petersburg University, Department of Economics. 
I lecture on History of Economics and History of Russian Economic Thought. 
Last year I wrote a textbook `Basic Economics` (400 pages, for high school) 
which is now `forthcoming`. Now I am finishing the dissertation 
`Toward the Theory of Real Economy: Evolution of Economics and 
Economic Sociology`. 
 
So as I am the novice in the world of HES disputes and English is not 
my native language I have a chance to understand something not properly. 
In such a case I beg everyone`s pardon and sincerely wish to be corrected. 
 
--------------------------------- 
 
I also think that Comim`s editorial contains a great deal of good sense. 
If we drop from the text the phrase `common sense` (it is quite possible) 
the main theme of this editorial is simple: A good economic model must be 
not a phantom but a picture of reality. So we need to look at the real 
economy and try to describe it with most proper concepts and methods. 
 
What about the `common sense` itself some points of this concept left me 
puzzled. Perhaps there is a conflict between CS of ordinary life and CS as 
method of theory building as Comim treats them. The first -- is the manner 
in which people conceive the reality and choose their behavior. The second 
-- is a reasonable methodology of the theory (rules of thumb etc.) And 
both... must be similar. 
 
> I define CSE as an attempt to develop methods close (and logically similar) 
> to the social realities they refer to. 
 
It seems to me that this is the main obscure thought in this paper. I can 
not understand why the method of analysis or describing of a man`s 
behavior should be the similar to the method of this man`s reasoning? 
Suppose that you have to explain the behavior of a savage... 
 
May be Russian meaning of `common sense` is something distinct 
from English one? 
 
Also though this paper contains a lot of good ideas I don`t think that 
the new paradigm - CSE - is sufficient to build the `good` economic theory. 
The rules of thumb are right but to use them in the way Comim supposes 
you should know all controversies and problems which precede their formulation. 
 
But one moment in Comims` agenda drives us to the curious thing. It is the 
role of HET in the economic theory building. The result of the development 
of economic theories (for last 200 years) is not very bad. We have a lot 
of ideas and instruments using which we can explain a lot of real facts. 
But modern mainstream economics contains just a part of these ideas. And 
hard-nosed economists bound to their optimization models do not use all 
these ideas and, moreover, can not use them. It is a historian of economic 
thought who can use this treasury of ideas and it is the HET which 
contains many parts of `good` economic theory. 
 
Maxim Storchevoy 
Saint-Petersburg State University 
Department of Economics 
[log in to unmask] 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]